And unlike on this blog, even an Obama supporter in the story sees misogyny in some of the attacks on Hillary:
But even some women who don't support Sen. Clinton express unease about the tone of some attacks on her. "Why is it OK to say such horrible things about a woman?" asks Erika Wirkkala, who runs a Pittsburgh public-relations firm and supports Sen. Obama. "People feel they can be misogynists, and that's OK. No one says those kinds of things about Obama because they don't want to be seen as racist."The article gives some depressing statistics on women ascending the corporate ladder.
It also quotes Heather Arnet as follows:
.Heather Arnet, a Clinton supporter who runs a Pittsburgh organization that lobbies for more women on public commissions and corporate boards, recently surveyed the Internet and found more than 50 anti-Hillary Clinton sites on Facebook. One of them, entitled "Hillary Clinton Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich," had more than 38,000 members.
"What if one of these 38,000 guys is someone you, as a woman, have to go to and negotiate a raise?" she asks.
35 comments:
I really enjoyed the video you posted previously. Don't know where you found it, but it's a real gut check for anybody who thinks that she's not facing some sh*t in this election. I wonder if a similar one could be made about Obama and race.
I agree completely with this post. As an Obama supporter, I have no desire to see him win because we're a sexist country. In fact I'd love to see a woman president, I just don't think Hillary is the one to do it. As I pointed out in my blog this morning, we don't just need a first woman president, we need a GOOD first woman president.
Let me be clear that I don't think that it's sexism VS. racism. For one thing it's not a zero sum game. For another thing it often goes hand in hand. What *is* disappointing is how many people will discount sexism used against Clinton because they don't like her or because they favor Obama.
Obviously, I disagree with you on Clinton -- I happen to think she'll make a great president.
Sexist things have definitely been said against Senator Clinton. I have repeatedly argued, however, that this is NOT Senator Obama's fault. He neither uses this, nor endorses its use.
Much of the worst garbage has been spewed by Fox News which Governor Rendell recently praised. The Drudge report also any credibility as a "news" organization when it published that microscopic picture trying to make fun of make-up. Heck, all of us (except the very young) would look horrid under such intense scrutiny-- I mean ALL of us, including men. So, why didn't Drudge do the same for the male candidates?
I believe all of us should point out real sexist nonsense when it occurs. But, it is equally important that we not fall victim to this. In large part, sexism (unlike other "isms") is a protection racket. Part of what we must overcome is patronizing protection which tells us and men that we need "protecting" from the big, bad world. We don't need any such protection, thank you!
Also, it is not the sexism displayed often on Fox, and occasionally by other newscasters that has left Senator Clinton behind Senator Obama in this contest. Senator Obama has a fundamentally different philosophy about politics which has nothing to do with any "ism". He believes in organizing from the bottom up. Senator Obama's candidacy (as he acknowledged early on) could only succeed if he could obtain the support (volunteering, donating, and voting)of the voting public. He so successfully obtained this support that his campaign is something of a phenomenom. I am part of that grassroots and can assure you this movement formed because of the inspirational call of Senator Obama.
Please do not degrade Senator Obama's successful appeal to us to organize for our Country's future by claiming his success is due to sexism on the part of the voters.
-- Kim
P.S. I am not including the drivel spewed by Glen Beck at CNN as newscasting. He is something else altogether-- I am still searching for the appropriate adjective to describe his absurd talking-headishness.
Y'know, the thing that drives me crazy about the Wall Street Journal is how its usually excellent and excellently repsectful (as compared to the condescending tone that often mars the NYT') reporting is its batshit-crazy editorial page. It took me about a decade before I could bring myself to touch that paper after Vince Foster.
- Shawn
I used to have to read the Journal during much of the Clinton years as part of my job duites. Usually the only thing that didn't make me gag was that one front page story they always had (have?)that I hesitate to call human interest but maybe I should just lable as not purely economics.
I have repeatedly argued, however, that this is NOT Senator Obama's fault. He neither uses this, nor endorses its use.
Since you keep arguing it when it isn't a claim that I made in the posts that you're arguing in, I'll mention that even the women newscasters on the pro Obama MSNBC found his "claws out" and "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal" less than, um appealing.
Much of the worst garbage has been spewed by Fox News...
Much of the worst garbage has been spewed by MSNBC.
Part of what we must overcome is patronizing protection which tells us and men that we need "protecting" from the big, bad world. We don't need any such protection, thank you!
Well, except for maybe civil rights laws, equal pay laws, fair housing laws, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, etc. Or do you disagree with those?
Please do not degrade Senator Obama's successful appeal to us to organize for our Country's future by claiming his success is due to sexism on the part of the voters.
First, find where I claimed that. You protest too much. LOL
Second, since YOU keep bringing that up, surely you're not saying that there wouldn't be some who feel a women shouldn't be president and that they would not vote for McCain or Obama instead based on that reason? Just as some Dems might not vote for Obama based on race and vote for Hillary or McCain instead?
Again, I never claimed that it was the reason that Obama is ahead of Clinton (though not enough ahead to close the deal). But it does crack me up how much it bugs Obama supporters when the obvious sexism used against Hillary is brought up.
Hillary Sexism Watch: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-sexism-watch-castrating-bitch.html
Maria-- Why are legitimate criticisms raised against Senator Clinton inherently sexist? Why is the use of a gender-neuter time parameter sexist? I don't believe that any of the above is sexist.
Since it is not your intent to claim that sexism is causing Senator Obama's strong success, I apologize for my misinterpretation.
I neither require, nor need egg-shell treatment. I neither wince from a real fight, nor cringe before legitimate criticism. I have no need for paternalism. Senator Clinton does not need it either. I fervently hope that the majority of women have rejected this gilded golden cage along with me.
Demanding equal pay for the same (or categorically similar) work will provide greater self-sufficiency, which is the opposite of paternalism. It IS paternalistic to claim that women don't need the same pay because their husbands can support them. Self-sufficiency, not paternalism, also supports anti-discrimination laws in every category.
Are you actually asking me if I believe in the 15th Amendment, or the 19th Amendment? Or are you simply trying to insult me?
Obviously, something about my support of Senator Obama irritates you intensely. This was never my intent.
I continue to hope that all Democrats will unify to make certain a Democrat is in the Oval Office on January 9, 2009.
--Kim
--Kim
"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal"
Kim -- you seriously do not think that is sexist? Come on ...
Of course it's sexist. You couldn't say of a man, "When he's feeling down, he launches attacks as a way of increasing his appeal." That wouldn't make any sense. Oh. Wait.
Here we go again wah wah wah Oh poor Hillary everyone picks on me wah wah wah. Feel sorry for me wah wah wah. So what if I lie, so what if I'll sit with the devil I'm allowed I'm Hillary Clinton. Don't you dare tell people of my lies I'm Hillary Clinton. Wah wah wah.Your defense of her equals that of Bush defenders. Wah wah wah.
Im sorry-
I watched NAFTA destroy mry dad's dream when the mills shut down
I wached as foreign interests took over over mortgages and funded the clintons.
I wached clinton give china most favored nation status to put a nail in blue collars of pennsylvania and now
i watch the mstruths how she doesnt share her husbands views while she had meetings to get nafta passed and now expanded under his chief strategist only to get caught by the press again in deceit.
Your right this is not a sexist issue -its a truth issue and she has failed
Kim,
Are you actually asking me if I believe in the 15th Amendment, or the 19th Amendment? Or are you simply trying to insult me?
YOU: "Part of what we must overcome is patronizing protection which tells us and men that we need "protecting" from the big, bad world. We don't need any such protection, thank you!"
ME: "Well, except for maybe civil rights laws, equal pay laws, fair housing laws, the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, etc. Or do you disagree with those?"
Obviously, I don't think that you disagree the 15th and 19th amendments, but what are they other than PROTECTION FROM ISMS??
I continue to hope that all Democrats will unify to make certain a Democrat is in the Oval Office on January 9, 2009.
I think this will happen. As long as the Dems don't nominate The Monster.
John K. says; So shitrock wants all the Democrats to unite behind a Democrat provided it is his Democrat. LMAO at the liberal mindset.
John K. says: See me! See my peenie! See my beautiful peenie! Lookie! Lookie!
Wait, x-steelworker, do you mean that there are legitimate criticisms of Sen. Clinton that have nothing to do with her gender? This cannot be.
It's only because she's a woman and Obama is black that she's behind right now, isn't it?
I mean, it has nothing to do with her votes on Iraq and Iran, the slimy lobbyist buddies running her campaign, slipping pictures of her Democratic opponent in traditional foreign garb to slimy "news" outlets, spreading lies about wink-wink discussions on certain trade agreements between her Democratic opponent and nearby foreign countries, saying that the Republican candidate is better prepared to be president than her Democratic opponent, or anything like that, does it?
Nah. It's just because she has breasts. That has to be it.
Kim, i'm not speaking for Maria of course, but if you asked me if I found your support of Obama irritating, I would answer No.....but I find your whole self-important commitment to femnism silly.
You say: "I neither require, nor need egg-shell treatment. I neither wince from a real fight, nor cringe before legitimate criticism. I have no need for paternalism."
Do you place your hand over your heart with that pledge? How old are you?
Oh, and x-steelworker, Obama definitely is not ahead because Sen. Clinton's top surrogate has taken to the wonderfully progressive op-ed pages of one of the 2PJ's favorite publications, the Wall Street Journal, to question why Obama did not abandon his church long ago.
"Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?"
One could never ask a very similar question about say, Sen. Clinton's top campaign manager, who, above and beyond pushing a trade deal Sen. Clinton allegedly does not support, has represented the biggest of the corporate big boys that have spent the past several decades pushing legislation that aids their corporate bottom lines at the cost of the health and financial well being of the average American.
Nah. It's just the genitalia thing.
Maria-- you are confusing paternalism with the dubious legal argument that "equal treatment under the law" is "special treatment under the law."
Paternalism is an old legal argument that still crops up in the reproductive rights debate. The argument is used that women need to be protected from themselves because we are incapable of forming long-term decisions in our own best interest. This argument is paternalistic.
Another good historical example is the paternalism used to support the California Marriage Laws which were in place until 1973. Under these laws, a married woman was required under the law to cede control over her separately owned property to her husband under the theory that we needed protection from evil men and the best person to provide that protection was our husband in the form of total legal authority over us. This is classic paternalism.
Demanding "equal treatment under the law" is not seeking "special treatment under the law." Equal is not special and it is more than time that the law entirely recognizes this fact.
Indeed, Ann Coulter, whom you defended above from "sexist" attacks, has engaged in paternalism. She stated to Bill Maher on his old ABC Politically Incorrect show that women were too stupid to vote and it was a bad idea giving us the vote. Why? Because we are too easily influenced by our husbands and boyfriends. This too is classic paternalism and Ms Coulter should voluntarily cease voting based on her own dubious analysis and leave the rest of us alone.
Senator Clinton would have come of age in a particularly paternalistic era. When she entered her professional career, arguments were being openly made to deny women jobs (because their husbands could support them and giving a woman a job would deny a job to a man who needed to support a family and thereby hurt other women), deny women good pay (same) and deny women family leave (the woman was misled by a man into taking a job, she would have been happier staying home having her babies-- and men needed to protect women from making such bad choices for themselves). This is why I am almost certain that Senator Clinton rejects paternalism and any notion that women need protection from the evil, bad world.
Paternalistic protection is not the same as demanding equal treatment. One is the notion that men need to protect delicate women who cannot protect or defend themselves. The other is demanding that the law treat us all equally and there is nothing paternalistic about demanding equality of treatment.
Some of the arguments recently advanced which seem to claim that Senator Clinton should not be criticized are paternalistic. Senator Clinton is (as she repeatedly tells us) a tough woman and she does not need to be protected from anyone. She can protect herself. However, Senators Clinton and Senator Obama are both demanding equal treatment under the law for everyone and this is not paternalism.
I hope the above clears up the confusion.
If you are interested in some of Senator Obama's positions on equal pay, click this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgP2aUJVT7U&NR=1
--Kim
Wait, x-steelworker, do you mean that there are legitimate criticisms of Sen. Clinton that have nothing to do with her gender? This cannot be.
It's only because she's a woman and Obama is black that she's behind right now, isn't it?
I have never said that -- that is Kim's framing of what I said.
But, by all means, please explain why it is sooooo damn troubling to you that I point out the loads of obvious sexism aimed at Clinton on my blog?
Seriously, why do you have a problem with anyone pointing out sexism when they see it?
Point away, Maria. Just don't manufacture it out of thin air (which you often do) or blame it on Obama.
You typically are pointing to sexism toward Hillary in the media, not on your blog. And your point seems to be that it seems to be OK to be sexist but not racist, and that this somehow benefits Obama. In fact, I think you keep bringing it up to imply that it's for that very reason that he's ahead.
I think you are right, actually, that the prevailing sentiment in the popular media is that it's just fine and dandy to be sexist. But I think you are absolutely wrong to even suggest that sexism has anything to do with the response to Obama. Clearly he has a message and a demeanor about him that many people respond to. But the point you fail - or refuse - to recognize is that a good part of that support, at least in the last few months, has been the result of the way the Clinton campaign has conducted itself in the wake of Obama-mania.
I, for example, was ready to keep my Indy status for the Pa. primary and let them duke it out. But her campaign's reprehensible behavior time and again - with this WSJ op-ed being yet another example - effectively forced me to change my registration status for the primary.
Sen. Clinton has managed to alienate millions of progressive voters over the last few months, and it has diddley squat to do with her gender.
Right on x-steelworker. To change the subject a little. Why do the media no longer call it Communist China, only China. Hell it was always Communist Russia this Communist Russia that. It wouldn't be because of all of our corporations that are over there. Who are silencing this. no they wouldn't do that.
I don't think Maria is confused at all. She is not saying Obama is ahead because of sexism. Many of his supporters have good reasoning behind their choice. I hear Maria saying that we should not tune-out the sexism in the media. How many insults and degrading references to our lokks and intellect are too many? As for Kims ecplaining Paternalism to us.....I fear she has taken on a Paternalistic roll in her efforts to show Hilliary supporters how confused they have become. I see that clearly.
Saying that, I agree with fill that, " Sen. Clinton has managed to alienate millions of progressive voters over the last few months, and it has diddley squat to do with her gender."
Kim,
"Some of the arguments recently advanced which seem to claim that Senator Clinton should not be criticized are paternalistic."
Which arguments advanced by whom?
That's like the classic line used by Fox News "some people say..."
I posted a video chock full of jabs at Hillary that were not based on ANY ISSUES but merely sexist jabs.
So please tell me do what was wrong with that, especially as I have often pointed out sexism and paternalistic behavior on this blog over the course of four years that I have been blogging here.
Fillippelli,
"...the result of the way the Clinton campaign has conducted itself in the wake of Obama-mania....But her campaign's reprehensible behavior time and again - with this WSJ op-ed being yet another example - effectively forced me to change my registration status for the primary."
(First the WSJ article was not an op-ed.)
You want to talk about reprehensible campaign behavior -- would that be like peddling an ultimately false story to Drudge? Yeah, I think that fits. (see here, here and here for documentation).
The biggest bullshit lie in this whole campaign is the spin that Obama has been running a positive campaign and it's Hillary who's been the negative one. It's crap because the Obama campaign has been going negative against both Hillary and Bill Clinton for over a year -- many times using the Right's own talking points.
You want a sourced list by date?
Here it is
What I see is this: one case of a media person putting out an admittedly dumb story about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11.
The stuff in the "sourced" time line is, eh, weak.
For example, it is absolutely correct that the Republicans want to run against Hillary. They can recycle all of that garbage from the 90s and, regardless of its accuracy, it will dominate the campaign. The hatred for Hillary on the right runs terribly deep and her candidacy will bring out voters who otherwise might actually vote for Obama or, at the least, stay home.
And, from my quick read, the vast majority of the other stuff in that pathetic little sourced time line is point-counterpoint bickering, not hypocritical pop shots in the WSJ or saying the Republican candidate is better equipped to be president or agreeing to primary rules and then, once it appears those rules benefited your opponent, arguing the rules are unfair.
Obviously the Obama campaign is far from perfect, but the examples you provide do not compare to the Clinton campaign's behavior. It just doesn't.
Well some people might vote for HRC JUST because she is a woman, but read this from today's Pgh Post political forum :
"The majority feel this is the first time that we ever had an individual from our race who has such a great opportunity of becoming president of the United States -- that's something to be really proud of, and I'm proud of it too," she said. "Trust me, whoever the nominee is, I'm going to work my heart out for that nominee."
Ms. Payne is the local Democratic Party's 1st Ward chairwoman, and among those in the party apparatus wary of turning off longtime supporters in the black community by supporting the Clinton campaign too vocally. That is partially why county Democrats did not issue a formal endorsement of Mrs. Clinton, even though it did support her in a straw poll and she has the support of the Democratic committee's chairman.
Surely Obam isn't getting votes for his skin color?
Following primary rules? He ran a national ad that he knew would run on FLA cable 10 times a day during their primary when all had pledged not to campaign in FLA.
He got one supporter in an early primary state to OK it.
Of course no one could possibly think that running 10 TV ads a day is campaigning. Nope, no way.
(And he still couldn't win that state.)
The gall of the man!!!! How dare he?!?!?!?! Imagine him using national advertising trying to build national name recognition against The Inevitable Monster a week or two prior to a 24-state election!!!! Especially since his opponent would never do that, and because he was breaking party rules.
Tell you what. You get out the lynchin' rope, Maria, I'll start the fire.
Wow! First, I am well over 40. I am unaware of any feminist pledge. Yet, without feminism, my career would be impossible and my life less than it is. If I am fierce, this would be the reason.
Second, other than sarcasm, there has been no response to my point that "periodically" isn't sexist, that Paris Hilton should not be mentioned in the same paragraph with Senator Clinton, or that Mr. Olberman is not a misogynist (& etc.).
Lately, I get to listen to men (and women) say things like "What do you expect? Most women cannot take any criticism." Nobody has spewed this nonsense at me in years. So, yes I am annoyed about it.
I have worked for paternalistic jerks. I have had them as clients. Most are now retired. Obviously, there is sexism out there, but it isn't a gender-neuter adjective or a call by Mr. Olberman to Senator Clinton to do what he believed was right.
Is Senator Clinton a victim? Her campaign says "yes"; but I disagree. More importantly, in the general election, more men than women vote and they will not vote to make a victim President.
By all means, take Mr. Olberman's special comment to pieces logically, demonstrate its invalidity. Go after Mr. Mathews' criticisms and use facts to destroy each and every one. Simply calling criticism sexist is neither response, nor refutation; it is a diversion.
Third, I cannot take on a "paternalistic" role because I am a woman. This makes it frankly impossible for me to be a protective authoritarian father.
Fourth, I don't think anyone is "confused". I believe Senator Clinton's campaign is specifically using the everything is "sexist" theme in an attempt to garner support and explain Senator Obama's lead. I also think this campaign technique is bad for Senator Clinton's standing and bad for women. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and my opinions are "periodically" incorrect -- gee, was I just sexist against myself?
Fifth, I have eviscerated criticisms (without resort to calling anything, or anyone sexist) levelled at Senator Clinton in response to friends and family. I am no wunderkind. If I can (even though I prefer and support Senator Obama) then certainly her campaign and her supporters can.
And come now, since when did Fox become anything other than a right-hand of the neo-cons using all of the fear techniques available, (a pinch of sexism here, a dash of racism there and throw in some fear of socialized medicine over there)? Don't you remember FOX pushing Mayor Guiliani on us just a few months ago? How happy Roger Ailes must be that some Democratic women no longer trust MSNBC, but are now tuning in to FOX?
Finally, I would bet that most of the snark aimed at me, comes from folks who agree with me on just about every issue. I keep coming to this site, not to argue, bicker or quibble over the definition of sexism, but b/c Maria and Dave put up this great countdown clock ticking down the time to the end of the Bush Presidency and the clock enthralls me -- can we make time go faster? I also find Maria and Dave's reporting exceptionally good.
O.k., I am done. Feel free to bash away. And now, I will put my hand to my heart and we can all repeat after me -- (joking!).
--Kim
I am at the point that I truly cannot tolerate even listening to this woman. What a disgrace that this is the example she sets as the first woman to be running for president. It is clear that Hillary is determined if she cannot win the nomination she will do her best to ensure that Obama does not win the general election. She is childish beyond belief, if she can't have it he can't either. Funny that she uses the truth against him while she wouldn't recognize the truth if it is staring her in the face. As a 50+ white woman who is supposed to be a Hillary supporter, I am embarrassed that she is a representative of women in the US. After this latest, I would not vote for her if she was the last person on the face of the earth. It is so true that while I would love to see a woman elected in my lifetime, ANY woman but Hillary!
For the first time in my lifetime, we have a candidate who truly understands economic adversity, a man who grew up in a single parent household for much of his life with his mom on food stamps while she tried to get through school. He lived in Indonesia in the type of poverty that is nearly unimaginable in the US. If ever we want a candidate who understands our pain, it is Barack. If not, we can get more of the same old same old in Hillary who used HER law degree to go to work for an elite law firm that represented huge corporate clients while Barack used his to go back to the streets of Chicago to fight for people like us. And let's not forget the $109 MILLION that Clintons have lived on the last seven years. It takes some nerve to slander him the way she has this time given her aversion for the truth.
Who does Obama really represent? The little guy? Well he will take your $200 donation, jiveing you up at rallys like a preacher before passing the collection plate, but his big doners are billionaire bundlers with big money at stake in passing big tax loopholes for the wealthy, casino builders and millitary suppliers. All of which Obam speaks out against. He really has you guys believing he's one of you. Fool!
"For the first time in my lifetime, we have a candidate who truly understands economic adversity, a man who grew up in a single parent household for much of his life with his mom on food stamps while she tried to get through school. "
Two words: Bill Clinton
Post a Comment